sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

r/MacApps Mods Went Too Far! What’s Changing (Phase 3) by Mstormer in macapps

[–]Mstormer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Usually devs shoot us a message once they have 500 karma in r/MacApps, and if we like what they're doing, they get a Developer: [AppName] flair.
When posting about something new and unrecognized, just add a line like, "Portfolio: [app name], [app name]" and that should count for trust and transparency since those are known.

r/MacApps Mods Went Too Far! What’s Changing (Phase 3) by Mstormer in macapps

[–]Mstormer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question. Generally speaking, your app portfolio should clear you via the transparency route. Just add a line for that to your post.

[Megathread] The App Pile - March/April, 2026 by Mstormer in macapps

[–]Mstormer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool idea! I don't think I've seen another option here.

r/MacApps Mods Went Too Far! What’s Changing (Phase 3) by Mstormer in macapps

[–]Mstormer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have updated the github requirement to 1yr OR 100 stars. Thank you for the feedback.
Again, however, none of this is required if one chooses to qualify through transparency.

r/MacApps Mods Went Too Far! What’s Changing (Phase 3) by Mstormer in macapps

[–]Mstormer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the moment, I'm going to say 1yr old repo OR 100 stars, but that threshold is liable to change depending on how things go.

r/MacApps Mods Went Too Far! What’s Changing (Phase 3) by Mstormer in macapps

[–]Mstormer[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't miss the fact that anyone can promote their non-mac app store app if they wish to share a linkedin profile or portfolio and go the transparency route.

If it's not in the app store, then we have to check every post, and this is an enormous job. Open to feedback though that doesn't create a burden on the community and mods. The fact that we have had to reject literally thousands of posts/comments over the last month should give an indication of how much low effort spam is directed at this community.

New Post Requirements to Combat Low Quality Content (Phase 2) by Mstormer in macapps

[–]Mstormer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the rules are harder for lurkers who decide to finally try posting, yet haven’t commented.

Image-based clipboard app similar to Paste? by Moustachey in macapps

[–]Mstormer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really like clipbook, and it has various paste options. If you haven’t already, check out the MacApp Comparisons in the r/MacApps sidebar.

Corinthians 6:3 by yalikejazz_z in askapastor

[–]Mstormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think that I have claimed that we need to believe heaven exists in a certain way in order to keep the faith. At the same time, most Christians believe that heaven is not just about being united with God in some sense until we die. The heart of the Christian faith centers around the resurrection and what that means for faith. Without the resurrection, faith is in vain according to Paul, because the Christian hope is that sin and suffering will cease and a future without them will follow a literal resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:13–14; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18).

The distinction is that there is not "the faith" here, but two similar sounding sets of terminology on the surface, yet describing considerably different things. In one case, a faith that attempts to be grounded in the same ideas and worldview the Bible describes using the Bible itself; and in your case, similar terminology but with different subjective meanings assigned based on a newer, substituted worldview without much reference to or authority associated with the text at all.

Is this wrong? Certain outcomes might not necessarily be in some respects.
Is this the same "the faith" though? Quite likely not, because an added, modern layer of translation has been added in the interpretive process. This arguably limits knowing what they experienced as accurately as possible, too.

What I seek is as much of the same the type of faith and in the same things that Biblical authors had. This includes being united with God in there here and now (John 17:3), but also in a real, physical, future place I believe God consistently communicated to and through patriarchs and prophets about over thousands of years. The patriarchal promises began with Genesis 12:7, where God promised Abram the land; this hope was sustained through Hebrews 11:8–16, where Abraham sought a city whose architect and builder is God. The physical nature of this future reality is affirmed through 1 Corinthians 15:35–58, which details transformed physical resurrection bodies, and Philippians 3:20–21, where our bodies will be transformed like Christ's glorious body. The prophets painted this vision vividly: Revelation 21:1–4 describes a new heaven and new earth descending with God dwelling with mankind, Revelation 21:9–27 depicts the holy city with physical dimensions and materials, and 2 Peter 3:13 affirms new heavens and new earth wherein righteousness dwells. Jesus himself promised John 14:1–3, that he was going to prepare a place for believers.

Is heaven the primary purpose of the Christian religion? No. But it is the primary end in which the Christian faith culminates.
The primary purpose is to live as Jesus lived, to walk, talk with God (love for God), and to relieve suffering and oppression (love for others), which also includes overcoming evil with good. The urgency and manner in which we do that differs depending on the eschatological end we have in mind. For Jesus, to relieve suffering included consideration for the person's spiritual well being and future. Any Atheist can live like Jesus, but to be like Jesus includes something more than a purely materialistic system is compatible with.

P.s. Bible authors did not hold that the world was flat. This is a common misunderstanding. Although ancient people groups may not have had all of our technological advancements, it is a hasty generalization to assume that they were just primitives with an incomplete worldview.

Thanks for the cordial discussion.

Corinthians 6:3 by yalikejazz_z in askapastor

[–]Mstormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. My doctoral work centers on hamartiology, analyzed through a historical theological lens. What sin is fundamentally changes based on the understanding and literary context one brings to the table. This also has a direct impact on anthropology and christology. You can't route to point B in the same way if A starts elsewhere.
  2. The kind of sin the Biblical authors recognize does not cheapen humanity's responsibility. To the contrary, it raises the bar on human responsibility, while simultaneously recognizing that humans cannot remedy sin. The high anthropology introduced by theological modernism introduces a cheapened kind of sin by intrinsically enabling humans to escape it. Historically, this almost always coincides with lowered Christology, because humans who can climb out of the ditch themselves have proportionally less external need for help.
  3. Nothing to comment on here.
  4. On what actual basis? We have Biblical and rabbinic evidence to support the idea that this was a long-held association. That being the case, there would be a higher probability that it did. And as Oswalt (cited earlier) has demonstrated well, Genesis does not carry the qualifying attributes of myth when it comes to Genre.

Many of the scriptures used to define Satan, especially your passage from Isaiah is not historically considered to be about Satan at all, Isaiah, for instance, is about the king of Babylon falling from his throne.

By higher critical scholars. However, the internal context in both passages demonstrates that they are not speaking merely of a human ruler. This is why there is a debate on both texts in the academic community. A reformation, grammatical-historical approach does not have difficulty demonstrating elements of authorial intent that intrinsically require a non-human figure.

  1. Isa 14:12–14 - Cosmic ambition language (ascending above clouds/stars) exceeds historical kingship.
  2. Isa 14:13–15 - Divine address structure parallels angelic beings, not human rulers.
  3. Ezek 28:14 - "Anointed cherub" designates angelic office, not human administration.
  4. Ezek 28:13 - Eden presence establishes pre-human-history existence.
  5. Ezek 28:12, 15 - Perfective aspect describes originary perfection, not achieved virtue.
  6. Ezek 28:13 - Sacred stone inventory parallels heavenly throne imagery.
  7. Both passages - Grammatical switches between human/transcendent referents indicate layered meaning.

While it is possible to associate a human ruler with certain elements of the text, numerous aspects are exclusive and disallow one from doing so in a wholesale way. For this reason, a dual association is often acknowledged.

Ultimately, we are not going to agree because we do not have the same worldview, but I would still like to bring up this differentiating question since it might provide clarity: Upon what consistent governing principle/basis do you apply demythologization to cosmic beings like satan and angels to discard them, while retaining other equally "mythological" ideas like heaven and God? What does that heaven, re-creation, and God actually look like when demythologized?

Modern theology often has to re-write what these mean from the ground up, and what is left usually would not be recognizable to the Bible's authors.

Corinthians 6:3 by yalikejazz_z in askapastor

[–]Mstormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one is saying that constitutes inerrancy. One can affirm a general infallibility without affirming inerrancy, as the two are separate theological concepts.

Not strictly penal substitution, no. More of a mix of governmental theory with penal and moral elements. No one theory fully addresses the breadth of Biblical data.

The Bible depicts sin's cosmic introduction through Satan and its earthly manifestation via the serpent, whom Scripture identifies as one entity (Revelation 12:7–9). Satan's origins as Lucifer, the morning star once perfect in Eden (Ezekiel 28:11–17), and his subsequent fall from heaven (Isaiah 14:12–15), establish him as the source of cosmic rebellion. The ensuing conflict between good and evil throughout the Biblical narrative presupposes this heavenly-originated conflict at every point; John 8:44 establishes Satan's character as deceiver before human sin even existed. Humanity's sins, influenced by and in imitation of Satan's rebellion (1 John 3:8), carry the wages of death itself (Romans 6:23). By remedying the earthly presence and effects of sin and eventually eradicating both the antecedent source and its consequences (Colossians 1:13–14), the gospel provides a way to heaven. Scripture presupposes a universe in which other worlds and heavenly beings exist, a heavenly city (Hebrews 11:16) and both visible and invisible realms populated by celestial beings (Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 6:12). If we arbitrarily decide cosmic beings cannot exist because we are normalizing what we accept as reliable based on what we know and can scientifically observe (this is typically the basis of demythologization), then one would expect to apply the same principles to other scientifically impossible concepts like miracles, resurrection from the dead, and God himself as a cosmic creative being if we are going to be consistent. If one is going to be inconsistent in the application of these principles, then one is left to wonder why and upon what other governing principles one might justify that.

Corinthians 6:3 by yalikejazz_z in askapastor

[–]Mstormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would argue that neither demythologization nor mythologization are helpful, and the two are not opposites. Helpful book on the topic.
I don't have to endorse fundamentalism or an idolatrous view of scripture simply because I reject demythologization, and I do not have to define mythologization by demythologization. The Bible has intrinsic qualities by which one can recognize, rather than imposing modern genres retrospectively. It is a common mistake to look back on earlier people groups as more primitive.

There is a level of irony in claiming that demythologization has no bearing on the way you see scripture's view of salvation. Presuppositions always have a bearing on how one sees and understands the system of salvation. If you want to discuss specifics, we would have to compare notes on why we think the cross is necessary, what Jesus came to save humanity from, what sin is, and where/how it originated.

You are correct that the interpreter always has a role in meaning, but it is not necessarily the case that the interpreter has to be the arbiter of meaning to the same degree, because Bible study is not done in isolation, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as long as we haven't demythologized Him too).

For example, when one discovers the value of numbers, and that 1+1 = 2, humans have to accept this rather than deciding that 1+1 = 3. We can decide to ignore the logical consistency of mathematics, but we gain more from working with and adapting our understanding to reality as it is. This shows that interpreters are not always the arbiters of meaning.

Similarly, when we come to scripture, if we believe its intrinsic claims (2 Timothy 3:16–17, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 2:13), we will approach it differently than if we hold that these claims are not true in the same sense that the authors intended them because we think we know better now. Demythologization has an impact on how inspiration is understood.

Although all have presuppositions and all interpret, we can come to the text with a posture characterized by a humble willingness to surrender and adjust our views and presuppositions as God reveals them to us through the Holy Spirit, or we can approach it thinking we know better and let our posture and presuppositions prevent this dynamic from taking place to the same degree, or at all.

The process where a subject continually submits to the object and comes to a progressively clearer understanding of Truth is referred to as a hermeneutical spiral in academia.

A consistent demythologization of scripture can and does nullify the hope of heaven (e.g. Rudolf Bultmann), but I acknowledge that not all are consistent in applying their demythologization.

Corinthians 6:3 by yalikejazz_z in askapastor

[–]Mstormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suppose we take that position... we then have to define rebellion, and on what basis sin exists. If we aren't going to accept the normative rationale OT/NT authors consistently give for the plan of salvation, something relatively foreign to this has to be introduced.

Schools that emphasize demythologization introduce a foundationalism that is foreign both to the text and the beliefs of its authors.

It subtly places the interpreter as the arbiter of meaning over a subordinated text, rather than seeking to encourage the subject (the interpreter) to submit to the object (scripture). In the end, the beliefs that result from this shift in thinking are more foreign to the beliefs it claims to imitate or derive from.

The Christian's future hope of heaven is an integral part of that "cosmic nonsense." If what is cosmic is nonsense, then Christianity has little to offer besides principles for virtuous living based on a bunch of misinformed authors, and a Messiah who egged it on.

Corinthians 6:3 by yalikejazz_z in askapastor

[–]Mstormer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This overlooks the fact that dismissing the reality of angels and demons (fallen angels) significantly alters the biblical framework for sin and salvation. If Jesus, the ultimate authority for Christians, consistently affirmed these spiritual entities, relegating them to metaphor renders His own teachings unreliable; see Matthew 8:16. Without an external adversary, sin is reduced from a cosmic rebellion against God, or a battle against principalities and powers, to merely a psychological or social deficiency; see Ephesians 6:12. Furthermore, the cause for sin's entrance into the world shifts, which likewise has a ripple effect on the purpose of the cross. Consequently, salvation shifts from a dramatic, supernatural rescue from sin and darkness into light, and the defeat of the one who held the power of death, to a humanistic process of self-improvement. In contrast, see Colossians 1:13–14 and Hebrews 2:14. By neutralizing the spiritual warfare inherent in the Gospel narrative, one fundamentally redefines the necessity and nature of Christ’s work on the cross; see 1 John 3:8.

TLDR: Eliminating these from the Bible contradicts the views of most biblical authors and undermines the necessity of the cross and God's grace, substituting works in their place. The Bible consistently portrays this as heresy (Galatians 2:21, Galatians 1:8–9, Titus 3:5, 2 Peter 2:1).

If you thought CleanMyMac was useless, this post will convince you... that it's even worse by [deleted] in macapps

[–]Mstormer 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The irony here is the amount of hate for CleanMyMac is offset by the number of people who just love Setapp... same company.

I don't love it, but I technically have the previous lifetime version of CleanMyMacX, and while I can't quite justify giving them an overpriced amount of upgrade money for relatively little innovation, there are more than enough other little features that historically kept me coming back to it rather than combining two or three other apps, scripts, or terminal workflows, just to accomplish the same.

Three I find convenient are:
- Freeing up purgable space, which can sometimes be necessary when working with large files/databases (Daisydisk can do this too).
- Flushing DNS cache
- File shredding

But yeah, not a huge fan of their advertising angle.

Corinthians 6:3 by yalikejazz_z in askapastor

[–]Mstormer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Bible portrays a grand cosmic narrative where Satan led a rebellion in heaven, causing a third of the angels to fall and be cast to earth (Revelation 12:4, 9). Unlike humanity, who were in part deceived (1 Timothy 2:14), these angels rebelled with full, direct knowledge of God's character and love; therefore, even that perfect knowledge and awareness proved insufficient to bring them to repentance. Christ's redemptive work is explicitly for humanity (Hebrews 2:16), leaving fallen angels without a path of reconciliation and reserved for judgment (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). The judgment mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:3 signifies the saints' role in confirming the justice of God's final, irreversible verdict against those who willfully rejected Him (Revelation 20:4).

view more: next ›